The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant Yamaha,
the manufacturer of the dirt bike which the plaintiff was
operating when the bike allegedly seized up during a jump,
causing the plaintiff to lose control and fall backwards, landing
with significant force on his buttocks. The plaintiff was
subsequently diagnosed with a T-11 burst fracture and permanent
paraplegia, manifesting in the complete loss of mobility from the
waist down. On the issue of liability, the plaintiff alleged that
the Yamaha dirt bike was defectively designed and manufactured
specifically due to a faulty carburetor. The plaintiff contended
that evidence established that the carburetor seized during use,
and that the defects alleged by the plaintiff were the cause of
the sudden seizure.

The subject accident occurred on April 27, ________, when the
22-year-old plaintiff was operating a Yamaha model YZ125 dirt
bike on land owned by his friend. The plaintiff was attempting a
jump from one previously constructed ramp to another similar
ramp, when the dirt bike suddenly seized in mid-air, causing the
plaintiff to lose control of the bike and fall to the ground. The
ramps or elevations were several-feet high each. The plaintiff
landed on his buttocks, sustaining a T-11 burst fracture. The
injuries to the plaintiffs spine were severe and he was rendered p 7 3
permanently paraplegic.

The plaintiff contended that the Yamaha dirt bike was defectively
designed and manufactured, specifically relating to the bikes
carburetor, which caused the dirt bike to seize just as the
plaintiff commenced the attempted jump. Postaccident examination
of the carburetor indicated flaking of chrome metal on the
carburetor slide. The plaintiffs experts opined that chrome
metal flakes peeled off the carburetor slide and caused it to
seize as the plaintiff attempted this relatively simple jumping
maneuver. The metallurgists microscopic exam and photos proved
the presence of peeling on the carburetor slide. In addition, the
plaintiffs expert metallurgic exam revealed prominent scratches
and steel tool fragments within the carburetor unit.

The plaintiff presented internal Yamaha documents, obtained
during the course of discovery, referencing problems with peeling
chrome plating on the carburetor slide, which were discovered
during durability testing of an exemplar subject dirt bike.

The defendant denied that the carburetor seized up during the
plaintiffs attempted jump and theorized that the actual cause of
the accident was the plaintiffs lack of expertise in the
handling and operating of this vehicle. The plaintiff countered
that while the plaintiff had admittedly ridden this bike on only a
few occasions previously and had little dirt bike experience, he
was very familiar with riding a variety of other types of off-
road vehicles. The plaintiff additionally asserted that the jump
he was attempting was a relatively simple one for an individual
of the plaintiffs experience and skill in off-road riding (the
ramps or "jumps" in question were approximately three feet high
and ten feet deep). The plaintiffs motor cross/dirt bike expert
concurred that this was a jump maneuver typically performed by
the novice dirt-bike rider. Under cross-examination by
plaintiffs counsel, a senior company representative called by
the defendant to testify on other issues, admitted that he too
considered himself a novice in dirt bike riding, and had
performed the same or similar three-foot-high jump maneuver on
one or more prior occasions.
The defense admitted the existence of scratches inside the
carburetor, but maintained that the debris and scratches were
environmentally created, pointing to the fact that during the
prior two weeks of use, the plaintiff had ridden the bike on a
rough trail consisting of sand and cinders. The defense argued
that cinders invaded the carburetor housing, scratching the
sides. The defendants expert said he found proof of the presence
of cinders inside the carburetor. The plaintiff countered with
expert testimony from a chemist, who opined that the black
coating and debris was residue from oil and gas alone and that he
found no evidence that cinders had invaded the carburetor.

The plaintiff sought damages for past medical care costs
incurred as a result of the accident, future medical and
attendant care costs, lost earning capacity (past and future),
damages for pain and suffering and damages for disfigurement.

The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded compensatory damages
of $________. The breakdown of the award was as follows:
$________ for future medical expenses; $________ for past medical
expenses; $________ for disability; $________ for p 7 3
disfigurement; and $________ for past and future pain and
suffering.